Suryanarayana Sastri vs Ramamurti Pantulu

The first question for consideration is what was the price for the assignment. The Judge has found that only Rs. 1,450 was actually paid and that

there was no satisfactory evidence of the payment by plaintiff either of the litigation expenses Rs. 290 or of the sum of Rs. 1,900 under the receipt

Exhibit B. Notwithstanding the execution of this receipt Exhibit B by Ramamma we agree with the Judge in believing her evidence that no money

was paid her on that receipt. The evidence in proof of payment is not of a credible character, and the omission of the plaintiff to state whence he

procured this large sum of money indicates that he never had it. It would have been easy for him to show how he happened to get the money if he

really did get it. The payment of the Rs. 1,900 is therefore not proved. As regards the Rs. 290 for legal expenses, there can be no doubt that

plaintiff must have spent a considerable amount of money in litigation on behalf of Ramamma. There is to begin with the stamp of Rs. 60 on the

succession certificate which he obtained on her behalf and she admits that she has paid nothing to plaintiff on account of litigation expenses. The

sum mentioned by plaintiff and admitted in the assignment itself, viz., Rs. 290, may be accepted as correct, as it is not extravagant.

It is then contended for the plaintiff that he is entitled to recover on the assignment the whole amount mentioned therein as the consideration,

even if the whole amount was not paid. If the case fell under Clause (d) of Section 135 of the Transfer of Property Act that would be so, but we

think that in this case the claim had neither been affirmed nor was ready for affirmation by a Court, and it therefore remained an actionable claim.

The decision in the suit against the Bank did not determine whether Ramamma or the defendant was entitled to the money. That was left for future

determination. All that the Court then decided in reference to the money was as to who should hold the custody of it, pending the settlement of the

rights of the rival claimants. We must therefore hold that the plaintiff can recover only the price he paid and that we have found to be Rs. 290 over

and above the sum allowed by the lower Court. The decree of the lower Court will be modified by adding this sum, and the incidental expenses

attaching to the assignment, viz., Rs. 46 to the amount decreed to plaintiff. The appellant and the respondent will have and pay proportionate costs

in this and in the lower Appellate Court on the amounts now allowed and disallowed. There is nothing in the memorandum of objections. We agree

with the Judge as to the genuineness and validity of the will of Ramamma''s husband and, as the defendant received the money within three years of

suit, no question of limitation arises. The memorandum of objections is therefore dismissed with costs.